An Answer to a Question
The question being How did IFBdom become identified with KJVOism?
The KJVO movement, as we know it, is rooted in the way the NASV was promoted c.1972. There had been resistance to (for the lack of a better term) the work and methodology of Westcott, Hort and others. Dean John Burgeon is the best known of the 19th century critics. Mind you, the good dean would be shocked and thoroughly upset at the way his name is used to support the KJVO position. The man was a medium to high church Anglican.
Now, let’s go back to the NASV’s introduction c. 1972. One of the leading promoters of the NAS was Dr. Stewart Custer of Bob Jones University. Dr. Custer’s enthusiasm for the translation did not set well with the many IFBers. His and other conservative evangelical\fundamentalist academics’ enthusiasm grated two jet streams of IFBdom.
One stream would surprise many. Its source was among some (but not all or many) Historic Northern Baptists like David O. Fuller, D.A. Waite, M. James Hollowood, et al. These men saw themselves as the intellectual and academic equals of Dr. Custer and the group he represented. The difference was they had little academic interaction with the faculty at Bob Jones University. This grew from the difficulties of travel and communication at the time. They also rejected the text model of Westcott and Hort. This group followed the thinking of John Burgeon. Looking back on the era, it seems they took the lack of dialog with the BJU supporters of the NASB as meaning their point of view was being disrespected and marginalized.
Then, there is the stream with which most are familiar. This stream stems from those who had little exposure to the original languages. They took seriously their statements from the pulpit when holding their AV1611 high, “This is the Word of God.” These were men who looked at seminary as cemeteries. Historically, many Baptists have not held collegiate or seminary training in high esteem at best and many times thought contrary to the plan of God. The enthusiastic statements by the supporters of the NASB were seen as essentially saying “This version is the latest and greatest. The King James doesn’t measure up to this version.” This put them in mind of the inerrancy battles they had fought or were fighting for (as of c. 1972) the last two generations with the Liberals, Modernists, and Neo-Orthodox. Suffice to say, the battles ended with bitter results for the Fundamentalists. Also, because of the methods and arguments used by their opponents, Fundamentalists ended up somewhat paranoid on matters of inerrancy and translations.
Which brings the discussion to how did the descriptor “King James Only” get conflated with Independent Fundamental Baptist? From the first stream, Doctors Fuller and Waite were well known in GARBC circles. Dr. Hollowood was well known in the FBF and taught at Marantha’s graduate school. These connections gave them platforms from which to voice their views. D.O. Fuller had the stature to get his trilogy: Which Bible?, True or False?, The Westcott-Hort Textual Theory Examined, and Counterfeit or Genuine? published and widely distributed. Their long term influence was pretty much a side show.
The second stream’s leaders magnified the KJVO influence until it reached far beyond the actual number of supporters. The late Jack Hyles was perhaps the loudest of this stream’s leaders. Beginning in the late ’60s, he built a large following based on First Baptist Church of Hammond’s Sunday School and bus ministry. With the petering out of large scale bus ministries in the mid 90s, Hyles took up the King James issue. With the platform he built over the past 20 plus years, he reached a number of Independent Fundamental Baptist pastors and leaders. His influence ranged beyond those reached by Peter Ruckman. Hyles also laid the foundation for the acceptance of Gail Riplinger’s work. He awarded her a Hyles-Anderson doctorate at the 1996 Pastors’ School.
The mixing of these two jet streams led to a perfect storm.
- 9 views
Nice summary.
In the 80’s, a video presentation by Dr. Dell Johnson (Pensacola Christian College, formerly teacher at Pillsbury) and a Lutheran theologian from Concordia supporting the Majority Text and KJV was very widely circulated in MN and WI among independent Baptists. It was quite influential at the time.
Steve,
I remember seeing that video tape when I was a kid in the 80’s. Pretty sure I didn’t watch it, but I think my dad got a copy sent to him. If I remember correctly, there was a group of men from MBBC, Central, and maybe some other schools who made a video response to the PCC KJVO video. I also remember a song, to the tune of the Beverly Hillbillies theme song, poking fun at Dr. Johnson and Dr. Horton and their role in the KJVO controversy.
Hyles did have a profound influence among independent Baptist towards a KJV only mind set. Years ago, I attended several of his Pastor Schools. Having had an interest in working with the deaf, my wife and I attended sessions that dealt with ministering to deaf people. In those sessions, we were told that the best Bible to use with the deaf was the Living Letters paraphrase.
I have an opinion on why Hyles stating his KJ Bible position and in my opinion, and my opinion only, Hyles used this platform to cover his sin. In my opinion, Jack Hyles did more to damage the independent fundamental Baptist movement than any other man.
Again, this is my opinion.
Hey Rob, thanks for your write-up.
How important, in your understanding, was the Sword of the Lord’s influence was important in getting KJVOnly to be mainstream in IFB churches?
Good question, Joe!
From what I have been able to fathom, KJVO seems to have really gone mainstream in the 1970s. I know Rice was not a KJVO man. I believe Sword of the Lord went that route under his successor, Curtis Hutson.
I really grew up in the Lord in a KJVO church, where the Pastor was a graduate of Mid-Western Baptist College; Tom Malone’s school. I have read that Midwestern did not used to be KJVO. That seems to support my vague date of the 1970s as being when that idea went mainstream.
The KJVO topic has always been very interesting to me. Appreciate the article!
Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and works in State government.
A. Its KJVO stand was post John R. Rice.
B. It definitely influenced what I call the “East Texas” sector of IFBdom. By “East Texas”, I mean that sector which spit off from the SBC under the influence of among other J. Frank Norris and John. R. Rice in the first generation and Jack Hyles in the second.
[Joe Whalen]Hey Rob, thanks for your write-up.
How important, in your understanding, was the Sword of the Lord’s influence was important in getting KJVOnly to be mainstream in IFB churches?
Hoping to shed more light than heat..
Actually the disagreement probably dates back to the introduction of the RSV in the mid-twentieth century and maybe to the ASV in the very early 20th century. These were the first two translations that were based on the Critical Text and generally weren’t well received.
"Some things are of that nature as to make one's fancy chuckle, while his heart doth ache." John Bunyan
If I remember correctly Bauder places the origin of KJV only at the 1960s printing of Hills’ book. I could be wrong on that my memory is not good today.
i would point out that as Kutilek demonstrates the real origin of actual printed KJV only books goes to the Seventh Day Adventist Wilkinson.
Rob,
Excellent post - very helpful. I’m enjoying the rest of your follow-up guys.
Straight Ahead!
jt
Dr. Joel Tetreau serves as Senior Pastor, Southeast Valley Bible Church (sevbc.org); Regional Coordinator for IBL West (iblministry.com), Board Member & friend for several different ministries;
The resistance to the ASV and RSV and their underlying text was not automatically a pro-KJV position. Remember the New Scofield Bible/ The debate in the early 20th century over translations was scholarly. The rise of the inspired KJV 1611 group in the 60’s was hardly scholarly. (Think Ruckman.) IMO, it was a kind of a shortcut to make separating from “them” easier because “they” didn’t use the right version.
"Some things are of that nature as to make one's fancy chuckle, while his heart doth ache." John Bunyan
The ASV didn’t raise much if any fuss. It was pretty much a niche product. The RSV on the other hand was seen as coming out of the Modernist Council of Churches. A tipping point was its handling of “alma” in Isaiah.
[Ron Bean]Actually the disagreement probably dates back to the introduction of the RSV in the mid-twentieth century and maybe to the ASV in the very early 20th century. These were the first two translations that were based on the Critical Text and generally weren’t well received.
Hoping to shed more light than heat..
I love it when about every four or five years some young seminarian will ask me “Joel does alma mean virgin or maiden - I always answer with a resounding - “Yes!” :)
Straight Ahead!
jt
ps - Orthodoxy is protected there in large part because of the Christological use of Isaiah……so no one get to nervous over “alma” - you don’t even have to go “sensus plenior” ….. all though with Isaiah the answer to complex prophecy is often found with one part “historical” ….. “one part christological” ….. “a last part eschatological.” random thinking…………..my apologies.
Dr. Joel Tetreau serves as Senior Pastor, Southeast Valley Bible Church (sevbc.org); Regional Coordinator for IBL West (iblministry.com), Board Member & friend for several different ministries;
[Rob Fall]The RSV on the other hand was seen as coming out of the Modernist Council of Churches. A tipping point was its handling of “alma” in Isaiah.
[Ron Bean]
Does anyone know who introduced and promoted the RSV?
"Some things are of that nature as to make one's fancy chuckle, while his heart doth ache." John Bunyan
by the Division of Christian Education of the National Council of the Churches of Christ in the USA. From what I’ve seen the work was done by under the auspices of the International Council of Religious Education which merged into the NCC as the DoCE.
Hoping to shed more light than heat..
William Combs has written an article on the history of the NIV which covers the RSV some. It’s on the DBTS website under journal articles.
So when did evangelicals start promoting translations based on the Critical Text? Would that have been the NAE and the NAS?
"Some things are of that nature as to make one's fancy chuckle, while his heart doth ache." John Bunyan
the NASB.
Hoping to shed more light than heat..
Discussion